[DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records

[John Lancaster]

What's really needed is for the "master" record to be the bibliographic record, which could be enhanced by anyone, as long as what was added was bibliographical information about the edition (issue, printing, etc. - whatever level of difference is allowed), with all copy-specific information in separate holdings records that are accessible to all, not just to the holding library.  Is this not the way some thinking is going, about future record structures?
 
That doesn't change the fact that, as Richard points out, there will always be a gray area, containing things that might be unique but might also be pertinent to a subset of all copies of an edition (issue, printing, etc.).  If we could all see holdings records (aka local notes), such information could be treated as local until proven otherwise.
 
John Lancaster (jlancaster at amherst.edu)

________________________________

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu on behalf of Noble, Richard
Sent: Mon 11/16/2009 2:31 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records



Quite simply, information that is inherently copy-specific, whether or not of interest to researchers of whatever stripe, does not belong in master records. Any record containing such information cannot be used for copy cataloging by another institution without editing.

 

I hover in my own judgment about another class of phenomena: things about one's own copy that are very possibly true of other, but not necessarily all copies. In general this will mean noting a state in some element of a copy that likely has a variant. The latest case-in which I plumped for inclusion in a full collation note with appended $5RPB-had to do with a sheet which had been perfected the wrong way round. It is possible that ours was the sole copy exhibiting this feature, but quite possible as well that it originated with incorrect orientation of the heap of sheets to be perfected, a mistake which the pressmen might well discover and rectify to get the remaining copies right (without discarding the imperfectly perfected ones-it's too expensive to throw away that much paper, and it might be impossible at that stage to print more copies of the other forme without having to re-set it). Such a note can be worded so as to fit comfortably as a species of general information in any other record; of course, when I can confirm variants from other copies, EEBO images, etc., it becomes "some copies (e.g. ...)". I do not include such things in anything other than quite detailed rare-book records in which such attention to physical details is to be expected.

 

I am confident that Deborah is lining up her sights on me, having read the preceding paragraph.

 

RICHARD NOBLE : RARE BOOKS CATALOGER : JOHN HAY LIBRARY : BROWN UNIVERSITY
PROVIDENCE, RI 02912 : 401-863-1187/FAX 863-2093 : RICHARD_NOBLE at BROWN.EDU 

 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of Robert Maxwell
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 2:11 PM
To: DCRM Revision Group List
Subject: Re: [DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records

 

I thought one of the reasons for creating the ability to have institution records in OCLC was so that such notes could be recorded in the institution record rather than the master record. I gather putting such notes in the master record leaves them vulnerable to deletion by later catalogers. At least we are advised on OCLC-CAT by OCLC personnel that local information such as this found in master records can be deleted.

 

Bob

 

Robert L. Maxwell

Special Collections and Ancient Languages Catalog Librarian

Genre/Form Authorities Librarian

6728 Harold B. Lee Library

Brigham Young University

Provo, UT 84602

(801)422-5568 

 

From: dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu [mailto:dcrm-l-bounces at lib.byu.edu] On Behalf Of McCallum, Rebecca
Sent: Monday, November 16, 2009 11:38 AM
To: dcrm-l at lib.byu.edu
Subject: [DCRM-L] Question: Local notes in OCLC master records

 

My colleagues and I are currently debating when to add copy-specific local notes and related tracings to an OCLC master record, and when to simply leave them in our local catalog only.  

 

At one end of the spectrum are notes that would definitely be of interest to researchers searching in WorldCat (eg. "500 _ _ $a Wesleyan copy: Heavily annotated and corrected by the author. $5 CtW").  

 

At the other end of the spectrum are notes that would not be as useful to those outside our institution (eg. "500 _ _ $a Wesleyan copy: From the Kallir Family Collection, Given in Honor of Barbara Kallir (Class of 1983). $5 CtW").  

 

But what about cases in between?  We're trying to find a balance point between providing useful information and avoiding cluttering up OCLC records unnecessarily.

 

Do you have parameters for when to add a copy-specific note to an OCLC master record?  If so, would you be willing to share those guidelines? 

 

Thank you very much.

 

Rebecca McCallum

Cataloging Librarian

Wesleyan University

252 Church Street

Middletown, CT  06459

(860) 685-3839

rmccallum at wesleyan.edu

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/ms-tnef
Size: 9690 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : http://listserver.lib.byu.edu/pipermail/dcrm-l/attachments/20091116/104eb6bd/attachment.bin